Set After Effects project color depth to 8, 16, or 32 bits per channel and toggle linear blending to achieve the desired color workflow.
Configure After Effects project settings (color depth, linear blending)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linear_blending | No | Enable linear color blending | |
| bits_per_channel | No | Color depth per channel: 8, 16, or 32 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'configure' and does not disclose whether a project must be open, whether partial updates are supported, or what side effects changing these project-wide settings may have. For a mutating tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with a parenthetical list conveys the operation and scope with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical efficiently states exactly which settings are affected.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify which project is affected, that a project must already be open, or how the settings apply globally. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left to assume state requirements and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both bits_per_channel and linear_blending already have meaningful descriptions and constraints in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as defaults, precedence, or interaction between the two settings, so the schema-carrying baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Configure') and a precise resource ('After Effects project settings'), then names the exact settings covered ('color depth, linear blending'). This clearly differentiates it from composition-level sibling tools like ae_modify_composition and ae_set_comp_background_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The distinction from composition-scoped siblings is only implicit in the word 'project,' and there is no explicit context about the active project or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.